Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Syegfryed]

Real fans didn't like it, in his opinion, anyone that did is just a white knight.

I mean, thats your own fault by thinking tolkien fans = real fans

you can be a fan of the work without being a fan of tolkien

Literally claims nobody in the whole world liked it for what it was, that they must have just wanted to pass the time (50 hours...), or it was just pretty to look at. And that anyone that dare suggest they'd rewatch it, is only doing so out of spite, as if nerd rage on the internet actually matters to anyone.

You are getting rly worked up for such hyperbole hun?

Yet, everything is true, everyone who came here that didn't hate it, just though the show was ok and everyone talk about the strong points being the scenario, the world and the cgi, not the dialogue, not the writing, not the acting or the action.

Belittles anyone remotely positive about the series as a "drone" because he cannot fathom someone enjoying it.

Because you and the others didn't, just here to be the contrarian.

Tells us, whats the best parts of the show, what you were most hyped about, i mean since you liked the show so much, go on, point your favorite parts

LEts see if you will be bombarded and pushed away like you claimed people were doing

This thread would have literally died already if people like you didn't feel the need to come and start talking about how much you hate it again, because you can't stop thinking about it lol

And if you think that way, why you come here and start complaining about complainier, just so we can start talking again?

Like come on, you don't rly want us to stop, you would not give us ammunition, otherwise you have nothing else to do, you need us.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone have thoughts on Tom Bombadil possibly appearing in season 2?

I am not completely opposed to him being in the show because there is supposed to be some joy in middle earth, it’s not all rings and dark lords. But I fear he’d be attached to the nonsensical Harfoot story. If he were to interact with the elves and give the chance for the elves to show a bit of joy and lightheartedness, that’d be good. Which, again, is why they need to recast Gil Galad into something remotely approaching the character Tolkien envisioned…

They are not that crazy to slip him into this shitstorm. As we saw, they would never do the character justice.

But hear me out, im not a superfan like the people amazon brought to do their advertise, so i don't know if the dude appear outside lord of the rings, so i don't know if they can lore-wise.

[Triceron]

Though your right it isn't your fault you have been clear your just here for the sake of trolling, I am the one at fault for forgetting that as I tend to do.

You must forget quite often considering how often I see you engaging with people you consider to be dishonest, hatekeeping or trolling. Or merely in reference to them.

[rogoth]

No it’s dishonestly and gate keeping.

you still didn't answer my question, furthermore, you have failed to define what a 'fan' or 'superfan' is, all you have done is assert that nobody needs to have any prior knowledge of a thing to be considered a fan of said thing (which is not only asinine it's factually wrong).

all you have done in this most recent tirade is argue that calling someone who is clearly NOT a fan of the franchise, who has no actual knowledge of said franchise outside of passive surface level knowledge that is likely incorrect anyway, is make the claim that they are in fact a 'fan' despite all signs and information contradicting you.

the reason their social media presence was mentioned in relation to them NOT being fans of the franchise is because they were paid to provide rave reviews of the product (this dumpster fire of a show) to their respective audiences, as well as meet the various quotas for gay/black/disabled/*insert other minority or protected group here* that Amazon is adamant about having with their extremely racist casting and hiring policies, and as stated not one of them has produced a SINGLE PIECE OF CONTENT either about LOTR or this show, not a single thing.

to illustrate just how moronic your statement of defence for these clowns is, here's an example for you:

based on your stupid definition of what classifies as a fan of something, you're saying that someone could be a fan of football, even though they don't know how it works at all, they don't know who plays the game but because they like 'sports' in general they are by extension a fan of this specific sport.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

you still didn't answer my question, furthermore, you have failed to define what a 'fan' or 'superfan' is, all you have done is assert that nobody needs to have any prior knowledge of a thing to be considered a fan of said thing (which is not only asinine it's factually wrong).

I did answer your question in this post here, and Prior knowledge in this cases covers all of Tolkien's works as any and all are all you need to take in to be a fan of his that includes movies and novels and the Silmarillion.

- - - Updated - - -

You must forget quite often considering how often I see you engaging with people you consider to be dishonest, hatekeeping or trolling. Or merely in reference to them.

Yes I do have a tendency to do so Unfortunately.

[bledgor]

...

I have at numerous points asked people like Rhole, keen and unified to provide receipts for the things that are so amazing/they love/they enjoy about the show. Instead they continue to attack people that didn't like/didn't enjoy the show. That is why I call such people drones.

They don't have thoughts about what they enjoyed (things like they enjoyed the music, the CGI, certain scenes, etc), no instead they just attack the people who didn't enjoy it. No thoughts only attack, attack, attack, like good like robots.

Like not once have they responded to one of the several people engaging them about what they enjoyed. For instance the scene where Durin conned Gil-Galad out of the table for his wife. While I don't think the scene fits as well into a Tolkien story (I feel if they wanted something of this nature it should have been the Elves conning the dwarfs) the scene was close enough it worked for me so I didn't mind it (minus the fuck awful dialogue that occurred afterwards of "give me the meat and give it to me raw"). That however would require them to have independent thought, so alas, no thinking.

[rhorle]

I have at numerous points asked people like Rhole, keen and unified to provide receipts for the things that are so amazing/they love/they enjoy about the show. Instead they continue to attack people that didn't like/didn't enjoy the show. That is why I call such people drones.

Even when there has been discussions about those things you still dismiss it. Don't act all arrogant here. You are no better then what you accuse others of being. Also amusing how you have been attacking for several of your posts but are somehow not a "good little robot". That is the problem with people that take your position. You create an enemy and no matter what they say or do you find some way to rationalize why they are bad even when you do the exact same things you accuse them of doing.

I've discussed many times what I've liked about scenes and what my own interpretation of things were. However since you don't like that it isn't blatant hate for the show it is dismissed as never occurring.

[Orange Joe]

lets get some basic things covered that can all be agreed upon ok?

what were they there for?: they were present at this event to provide a review of the pre release trailer footage they were shown.

what happened during the event?: they were flown out to a location on the Spanish island of Majorca to a venue that was hired out by Amazon for this 2 day event where the guests stayed and were 'wined and dined' while there, not only were they plied with alcohol and a gift set, they were also told they would be invited to a second event closer to the release of the show if they were favourable during this event.

as part of their endorsement, they were paid by Amazon (in the form of hospitality and the copious gifts they were given when there) and in return gave a rave review, under UK law this sort of thing is illegal and is a clear conflict of interest, as such it should have been disclosed very clearly beforehand what was given to these people, and how their view was tarnished, it is also illegal to coerce a positive outcome from someone who is reviewing something who has taken payment for a service if they are an independent entity (which all of these 'superfans' are).

the only reason people found out about the gift sets and the onsite gifts given on top of those gift sets is because someone who was there shared online a short video of them opening up their small gift bag, and in one of the non English videos they stated about how they were given as much alcohol as they wanted and how great it was, if it wasn't for these 'accidental slip ups' nobody would have known about these gifts, which makes things even worse, Amazon thought they could get away with it (and clearly did because nobody has the financial means to challenge it) by providing non monetary reparations for the positive reviews given by these 'superfans'.

these 'superfans' broke the law by not disclosing they were payed to give their review and provided false and misleading information based on the understanding that they would receive further preferential treatment and further gifts if they provided a positive review, if they had disclosed these things it wouldn't be an issue, but because they purposefully hid them, and were later shamed into admitting they were given these things that's where the line is drawn, they knowingly and wilfully accepted payment to provide false and misleading information which could lead to financial gain for the person/persons that the review was designed to help, and that's where the breach occurs, but because the event wasn't held on the mainland UK, and because nobody has the financial means to contest such a thing in court against Amazon (who for all intents and purposes have unlimited funds) nobody has actually filed anything against them.

these are all a year old at this point so if you genuinely wish to learn more about this entire debacle, go look it up, i'm sure you can easily find some of the videos on youtube that are still up, there might be some you can't find because they were forced down but the info is there, as for me it's nearly 4:30 A.M where i live and i'm going to bed, have fun, and i can't wait to see what excuses people will make for breaking the law regarding commercial gain and how Amazon did nothing wrong while making this so called 'masterpiece' of a shitshow.

Which law are you actually citing? The only one I know of that deals with this is the content creators must disclose if they were sponsored on a video they created.
Otherwise hired actors are breaking laws in every commercial.

[rhorle]

Anything involving Gil Galad doesn’t fit as a Tolkien story. There’s literally zero about his character that fits the lore.

Consdiering his parentage was revised a couple of times that is a bold claim to make. Their is remarkably little about a lot of the characters Tolkien created. He was good at creating a mythology but lacked the detail of personalities, motivations, etc. It is also silly to say there is zero about his character that fits lore when his depiction has yet to contradict anything in the lore.

[Raisei]

The "not trusting" his motive was already present in the work. The reason for why is not part of canon. The motivation for why the elves were swayed by "ultimate power in the form of rings" is not. The character motivations are not really part of canon around these events. I'm not defending amateur show runners but just illogical points raised to hate on the show.

I guess the showrunners did not know this. Or are you hearing this nuance out of their interview? I hear very clearly that they consider anyone that would take the rings as foolish. I think I know why. They have watched Shadow of Mordor with the scenes of Annatar giving the rings in very ominious circumstances and from that got the idea of it being a devil's bargain.

Tolkien maybe changing something is not weak at all.

Yes it is. Because with that argument you can defend anything. Frodo could have had pink hair and cyberpunk upgrades, maybe Tolkien would have written that if he had the choice. Maybes and potential changes are not good arguments.

Not according to the Estate and Tolkien's son. Jackson also had a complete work to go off of and he still improved on Tolkien's story. This is a perfect example of how when people don't like something they hate on things that they wouldn't do if they like it. You like Jackson's work so him improving on Tolkien's work isn't an issue. You hate the sh ow so them improving on his work is an issue. You say you don't need to look for reasons to justify your hate yet create things that only apply to the show while ignoring when it applies to things you like.

I would not be surprised in the least if the billion dollar contract they signed with amazon also included a few lines that binds the Tolkiens to "like" the show at least in public.
But even if not and it is genuine, so what? Knowledge and the ability to write are not genetic. Just because they are related does not mean that anything they like would be in accordance with Tolkiens ideas.
But in general you missunderstood me. I say it would be fine to improve on Tolkien. The problem I have is that the show does not. It takes away and reduces his amazing world to a mere reflection of ours because the showrunners had a message to bring to the audience and that message superceded any intention of telling a compelling story.

It is also silly to say Tolkien left our world behind when much of his writing reflected his experiences in the world. Not to mention the heavy Christianity themes in his work. Again an example of you ignoring things when you like something but using it as a bad thing when you don't like something. Strange, right?

You are again missunderstanding me. What I am talking about is that a narrative only works if the author can pull the reader into the fanatasy world they created. Tolkien is a human and was socialized in 19th/20th century times with a christian background. That will always be part of his writing, but he still managed to establish a world that functions on it's own without needing to be a direct reflection of ours.
You speak of heavy Christian themes. I would say I can barely notice them, despite having studied religion in university. They are there, but not in a way that would affect the story negatively. Conversely, with all the obvious political messaging in Rings of Power it is a wonder the series had time for plot because it is...in ...every... scene...so overdone that it suffocates the narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

The source material they're talking about is a few lines in LotR. You're wrong about Annatar as both Gil-galad and Galadriel were suspicious of him from the start but that's irrelevant as Annatar isn't even mentioned in the texts they have a license for. What they say is they started thinking of motives, looked at how the three Elven rings were used for preservation and the fading of the Elves, and decided they were good aspects to use to put some drama in the story they were telling. Obviously I didn't watch the influencer you linked because I don't want YouTube thinking I'm interested in that sort of culture warrior bullshit, so I don't know how much you got from that video and how much you made up, but your take that the showrunners thought Tolkien was a bad writer because he wasn't taught stranger-danger as a child is unhinged. It's fine to not like what they wrote (I'm not in love with how little interaction there was between Sauron and Celebrimbor) but why make up bullshit?

I mainly linked the video because it was the easiest way to find the lines. Otherwise I would have had to go through the podcast and that was just a bit too much effort for this discussion (besides I did not want amazon to think I liked that drivel). The point however is my own conclusion, built on what the series shows me, combined with what the showrunners are saying. I do not require a youtuber for that.
It is a fact that current hollywood is spending more time catering to poltics then to the quality of it's media, the examples for that are numerous. The same has happened here and it is the root of the problem. A fantasy world just does not lend itself to spoon-feed people a political idea unless you twist it so much that it is nigh unrecognizable.

I honestly don't see the world in RoP as a reflection of our own. There are severe discrepancies with the events Tolkien wrote about in his unpublished works but the actual setting feels extremely Tolkien, pretending the people who made it didn't appreciate what he wrote is nonsense, it absolutely shines through despite the restrictions with licensing and their inexperience with creating a show like this.

I really can't see it and I have talked to many people about it who all agreed that there are big problems. But I mean, have you listened to what they are saying on this podcast? How is this "appreciation"? The literal words were "who would fall for that?", for one of the core ideas in the story. How else is this to be interpreted then "the author is writing idiot characters, we have to fix that".
Then there were lines like Sauron "will be similar to Walter White". What the actual frag... There is modernizing things and then there is shoving succesful ideas into your project, because they worked somewhere else.

I am not saying that I haven't seen worse shows. The Netflix Resident Evil and She-Hulk definately beat this one, but they really really had to do better to be worthy of the legacy they are taking over here. Unfortunately I see zero acceptance of that in the showrunners, since their only reaction to critism is pretending to be tragic heroes in the fight against rascism and misogynism, so season 2 is likely going to be the same level of quality.

[rogoth]

Which law are you actually citing? The only one I know of that deals with this is the content creators must disclose if they were sponsored on a video they created.
Otherwise hired actors are breaking laws in every commercial.

i would need to go and look it up, it's been a while since i studied A-Level Law, it's related to contract law and the disclosure of payments.

as to your second point, not only are these not 'hired actors' they are 'paid social media personalities' and i use that with so much looseness it might as well not be attached at all, as stated the only reason they are there is because 1) they fit within the tickbox framework set up by Amazon for how many of a certain minority they need to have present, and 2) they are small enough 'content creators' to be considered 'unknowns' but large enough to have an audience that Amazon felt was worth interacting with.

also as stated, they didn't disclose that they were paid (through hospitality and other things as detailed previously) which for the service they provided is illegal here in the UK, it was only due to the 'negligence' of one of the attendees of the event that people found out the extent of what was given in order to get these clowns to provide a positive review of hwhat they were shown.

[Dhrizzle]

You are again missunderstanding me. What I am talking about is that a narrative only works if the author can pull the reader into the fanatasy world they created. Tolkien is a human and was socialized in 19th/20th century times with a christian background. That will always be part of his writing, but he still managed to establish a world that functions on it's own without needing to be a direct reflection of ours.
You speak of heavy Christian themes. I would say I can barely notice them, despite having studied religion in university. They are there, but not in a way that would affect the story negatively. Conversely, with all the obvious political messaging in Rings of Power it is a wonder the series had time for plot because it is...in ...every... scene...so overdone that it suffocates the narrative.

You don't see the Christian themes in a world made by an all powerful Creator who sends angelic beings to aid the earthly people he considers his Children and allows Evil to exist for ineffable purposes while intervening with small enough nudges to allow Good souls to act through Free Will?

I mainly linked the video because it was the easiest way to find the lines. Otherwise I would have had to go through the podcast and that was just a bit too much effort for this discussion (besides I did not want amazon to think I liked that drivel). The point however is my own conclusion, built on what the series shows me, combined with what the showrunners are saying. I do not require a youtuber for that.
It is a fact that current hollywood is spending more time catering to poltics then to the quality of it's media, the examples for that are numerous. The same has happened here and it is the root of the problem. A fantasy world just does not lend itself to spoon-feed people a political idea unless you twist it so much that it is nigh unrecognizable.

No-one has established what these scary political ideas are though, whatever you think you are seeing is wholly imagined. Certainly to the extent the series is a direct reflection of our world with real-life politics stifling every scene. That is ridiculous hyperbole.

[Surfd]

You don't see the Christian themes in a world made by an all powerful Creator who sends angelic beings to aid the earthly people he considers his Children and allows Evil to exist for ineffable purposes while intervening with small enough nudges to allow Good souls to act through Free Will?

Sure, there are Christian themes / parallels in Tolkien's work, but they are comparatively simple and not super in your face most of the time, unless you really dig into the background lore. Most of it is very broad strokes, big picture stuff.

Contrast that with his contemporary C.S. Lewis and the Narnia works. Narnia practically beat you over the head with the religious allegory, to the point where Tolkien himself actually criticized it for how heavy handed it was.

Reading Tolkien never, EVER felt like an attempt to hide a sermon in a fantasy work. Narnia practically stuffed the sermon down your throat.

Therein lies the difference.

It's the difference between building the frame and foundation of your house with quality workmanship due to respect of Jesus's father as a carpenter VS decorating every room with gaudy Jesus statues and crucifix ornaments and framed bible verses because you want everybody to know how devoutly Christian you are.

[Syegfryed]

I have at numerous points asked people like Rhole, keen and unified to provide receipts for the things that are so amazing/they love/they enjoy about the show. Instead they continue to attack people that didn't like/didn't enjoy the show. That is why I call such people drones.

They don't have thoughts about what they enjoyed (things like they enjoyed the music, the CGI, certain scenes, etc), no instead they just attack the people who didn't enjoy it. No thoughts only attack, attack, attack, like good like robots.

Like not once have they responded to one of the several people engaging them about what they enjoyed. For instance the scene where Durin conned Gil-Galad out of the table for his wife. While I don't think the scene fits as well into a Tolkien story (I feel if they wanted something of this nature it should have been the Elves conning the dwarfs) the scene was close enough it worked for me so I didn't mind it (minus the fuck awful dialogue that occurred afterwards of "give me the meat and give it to me raw"). That however would require them to have independent thought, so alas, no thinking.

Indeed, is the same behaviour you see in other threads as well, no engagement outside of coming randomly to attack someone, acting like they are above all else, pretending to be superiors because they do better than us who just "spread hate".


Doesn't help cause no one seems to like to talk good at it anyway, you only see the same "well, i like the hobbits bits" and they gone forever.

Similar to the willow thread, no one was saying a thing(because almost no one watched that shit), but some were quickly to bitch about the critics., Too bad i dropped in episode 4 of how bad it was, but i plan to finish just to maim the show later.

[rhorle]

It doesn't contradict the lore is an incredibly low standard.

Yet it is the only standard we have. The fact you need to come up with such a ridiculous example shows that you know that his character doesn't go against lore because there is no real character in lore. And yes your example does contradict lore because we know that machine guns didn't exist in Tolkien's world. It is strange how much you care about Tolkien yet can't actually apply a well reasoned discussion of his lore and characters.

All you look for is the shock value and an echo chamber of hate. The moment you are met with someone that doesn't support your hate you can't handle it.

- - - Updated - - -

I hear very clearly that they consider anyone that would take the rings as foolish.

The elves were foolish and Tolkien established this. It is why not every elf was trusting of Annatar and his gifts. Your zeal to attack the show blinds you to Tolkien's own writing.

Yes it is. Because with that argument you can defend anything. Frodo could have had pink hair and cyberpunk upgrades, maybe Tolkien would have written that if he had the choice. Maybes and potential changes are not good arguments.

Taking it to the absurd doesn't actually give you an argument. Most of Tolkien's work is filled with maybes and potential as that is what anything he didn't publish while alive is. Maybes and Potentials that were finished by his son or the estate. We have examples of things he wanted to change and since the seeds for doubt already existed with the Elves he easily could have embellished those feelings more in the context of his other changes. We even have examples of his son saying changes he made to his fathers work was a mistake (the parentage of Gil-Galad for example).

I would not be surprised in the least if the billion dollar contract they signed with amazon also included a few lines that binds the Tolkiens to "like" the show at least in public.

The Tolkien Estate had a seat at the "creative table" and could veto things. The Elves taking the rings from a random stranger is foolish. It is amusing you bring up "not in accordance with Tolkien's ideals" when that is exactly what the estate thought of Jackson's work. It is strange how often people use that phrase to disparrage the show while also praising the Jackson work.

What I am talking about is that a narrative only works if the author can pull the reader into the fanatasy world they created. Tolkien is a human and was socialized in 19th/20th century times with a christian background. That will always be part of his writing, but he still managed to establish a world that functions on it's own without needing to be a direct reflection of ours.

It is amusing how you defeat your own argument because none of what you just said applies to the show. It doesn't require the real world in order to function at all and can stand on its own. Also if you are a Tolkien fan you would know that his world functions based on Christian ideals. His god is a reflection of the Christian god. It really is core to the rules and laws of his world.

Then there were lines like Sauron "will be similar to Walter White". What the actual frag... There is modernizing things and then there is shoving succesful ideas into your project, because they worked somewhere else.

I didn't write what you quoted but you really think they wanted to make Sauron into a meth dealer? Because that is the only thing "modern" about Walter White. A relatable bad guy isn't anything new to our world. It is them saying what they used as inspiration for the character. It is crazy how much you, and others, use these quotes to attack the show when you display ignorance of what they are really saying. It shows how shallow you all search for insults.

[rhorle]

How do you know there weren’t machine guns? Sauron was a subtle craftsman skilled in metallurgy, having learned from Aule, the guy who created the dwarves. With countless years spent building his army, it actually seems more logical that he would have developed guns.

We know there are no guns because Tolkien revised them out of his story. He originally had Numenor have iron ships, guns, and other similar things. How is it that you are a tolkien-lore fan but didn't know this?

Your point doesn't even apply to anything you originally stated. You said that the depiction of Gil-Galad has zero to do with Tolkien when he has barely any character development in lore. To defend your claim you went absurd. His character isn't defined by lore so to have it appear in an adaptation you would need to make things up. Are you saying the show would be better to not have Gil-Galad as King of the Elves to avoid the show "making things up"?

[Orange Joe]

i would need to go and look it up, it's been a while since i studied A-Level Law, it's related to contract law and the disclosure of payments.

as to your second point, not only are these not 'hired actors' they are 'paid social media personalities' and i use that with so much looseness it might as well not be attached at all, as stated the only reason they are there is because 1) they fit within the tickbox framework set up by Amazon for how many of a certain minority they need to have present, and 2) they are small enough 'content creators' to be considered 'unknowns' but large enough to have an audience that Amazon felt was worth interacting with.

also as stated, they didn't disclose that they were paid (through hospitality and other things as detailed previously) which for the service they provided is illegal here in the UK, it was only due to the 'negligence' of one of the attendees of the event that people found out the extent of what was given in order to get these clowns to provide a positive review of hwhat they were shown.

Well until you actually cite the law I call bulshit.

[rogoth]

Well until you actually cite the law I call bulshit.

it falls under the jurisdiction of the fraud act 2006, and the equality act 2010, so no, not 'bullshit' as you want to believe, but then again why am i not surprised that ignorance is the common thread that binds many of the defenders of this trash together.

[Orange Joe]

it falls under the jurisdiction of the fraud act 2006, and the equality act 2010, so no, not 'bullshit' as you want to believe, but then again why am i not surprised that ignorance is the common thread that binds many of the defenders of this trash together.

So you can't cite it? Cause looking at the fraud act I don't see this falling under it. Not to mention it's funny you think UK law applies everywhere. Hint it doesnt.

[Rennadrel]

Well that's just daft. It's more like someone made a diorama based on the Mona Lisa and you're constantly crying about how much you miss the painting despite it still hanging in the Louvre and millions of prints existing all around the world.

- - - Updated - - -



The thing is that only works if it's utterly irredeemably rubbish and that's not how it turned out, hence we've had pages of people desperately trying to ignore the fact that it was considered successful and plenty of people enjoyed it.

Amazon Studios management thinking it was successful considering it didn't even come close to having enough viewers to cover the 300 million dollar budget for the first season, just shows that their management are as incompetent as their writing team for the show was. Because no one drops a billion dollars on an IP license and can call a show that didn't even crack the top 10 for minutes viewed across all streaming platforms successful. It lost money, maybe not a ton considering Prime Studios might as well be a tax write-off at this point, but it wasn't profitable.

[rhorle]

Amazon Studios management thinking it was successful considering it didn't even come close to having enough viewers to cover the 300 million dollar budget for the first season, just shows that their management are as incompetent as their writing team for the show was. Because no one drops a billion dollars on an IP license and can call a show that didn't even crack the top 10 for minutes viewed across all streaming platforms successful. It lost money, maybe not a ton considering Prime Studios might as well be a tax write-off at this point, but it wasn't profitable.

It is strange that you under state the season budget and over state the IP license cost. The license cost Amazon $250 million or less. Reports have stated that the 250 offer was from Netflix but the estate went with Amazon that was slightly lower. The season 1 budget was $450 million. Seeing as how you can't even use accurate numbers it seems clear you are manufacturing outrage.

The show was a success for Amazon. It wasn't in the top 10 for the year but it was in the top 15 which is still impressive. To say otherwise is just your bias showing.